Ok. Today I take on the quasi-pervasive myth of ‘the best predictor of someone’s future behavior is their past behavior’ <which is actually not really true> and how to actually ‘predict’ some behavior <yet do so without invading someone’s privacy>.

———-

Psychological scientists who study human behavior agree that past behavior is a useful marker for future behavior. But …. only under certain specific conditions:

1. High-frequency, habitual behaviors are more predictive than infrequent behaviors.

—-

2. Predictions work best over short time intervals.

—-

3. The anticipated situation must be essentially the same as the past situation that activated the behavior.

—-

4. The behavior must not have been extinguished by corrective or negative feedback.

—-

5. The person must remain essentially unchanged.

—–

6. The person must be fairly consistent in his or her behaviors.

———

Well. That is certainly a list that filters a shitload of people OUT of past behavior predicting future behavior <how many of us have not changed ?>.

Projecting behavior, secrets and personal privacy in a transparent online world is a complex discussion. Oh. And it is also a formula that doesn’t quite add up to me: sharing a secret + seeking advice on what to do <personal behavior> does not equal personal privacy. In fact, it almost presumes shared privacy & sharing secrets <albeit with some limits I would assume> in order to receive the desired projected behavior tips & suggestions.
In other words, I cannot get something without giving something.

That said. I did not mistype the headline.

I imagine all of us have shopped online or read an article online where the website has a nifty feature which says something like “you may also like” or “if you bought this you may like” tips.

Well. Some smart writers came up with that wording because the technology <algorithms> behind all the analysis that allows the suggestions to occur is really saying to you “if you liked this you may want to DO this.”
Please note as I discuss this topic while technology has changed a shitload of things, technology is simply a facilitator <sorry … it is not evil in and of itself>. It is the deliverer of the real game changer — behavioral analysis.

Now. Behavioral analysis can quickly get abused in that if we people do not think for ourselves and assess the information and ‘guidance’ we receive, we simply become sheep to technology herders.

I shared that ‘sheep’ thought because there is something called life-logging <a wearable or portable technology> that not only tracks us and what we do and where we go, but it can quasi-predict your next ‘expected’ move. It actually predicts and encourages your next move as well as provides a personal stream of information of your life <hence the name ‘life-logging>.

Yup. This is the technology version of “if you did this then you really want to do this.”

I believe there are several options available now but I am going to highlight Saga <no longer in existence> because I liked the way they crafted and wrote their site information:

——–

Saga automatically records your real life story, as told by the places you visited and the things you’ve done. We all have a great story to tell. Let Saga tell yours. Remember Everything. Life is short. Capture every moment, even the little ones, in your lifelog. Learn about your habits and set meaningful goals with the insight you gain. the apps integrate with services including Twitter, Foursquare, and Instagram, enabling users to pool and manage their own personal data. Narrato provides users with a “lifestream” so that information is available in one place and exportable for users to manage and save, creating an extremely rich picture of the user’s activities.

——–

In doing some background research I have noted that lifelogging apps do everything in their power to suggest they are not stalkers or creepy. They talk about personal empowerment, ‘giving power to the user’, and that personal data is managed safely in their own personal cloud.

Ok. Before I tell you how it works. Let me move to ‘secrets’ for a moment which, by the way, is a version of security <or personal privacy>.

Lets face it. Like it or not <and boy oh boy older people do NOT like it> in a technology world secrets will be, well, fleeting.

In fact I sense the only way to keep a secret is to not place it anywhere in or on technology <in fact I just saw an article where Germany is suggesting using typewriters again solely to combat spying>.

Now. Before anyone goes ape shit on privacy and such … keeping secrets has never been easy.

In fact. People have always sucked at keeping secrets. Thinking that technology is ‘infringing upon things that are ours’ is archaic thinking <at least to some degree>. I am not absolving technology for having some moral & ethical guidelines, but let’s be realistic.

Anything comes with a price tag. Everything is a tradeoff. Ponder that as we shout about <secrecy & privacy>.

Uhm. We also seem to want ‘if you liked this you may like this.’ Can’t have both folks.

Sorry. And it is gonna get tougher for all of us as ‘lifelogs’ slide into our lives.

That said. How do lifelog apps work <in this case Saga as my example>? They use the sensors on your smartphone to build your lifelog. It records the places you’ve visited and the trips you’ve taken without any input from you. All you have to do is go about your Life, living it, and the sensors tag along for the ride <recording & capturing everything>.

It’s certainly not perfect because it cannot always guess your location correctly <the first time around>, but ongoing action and behavior constantly improves the location algorithms. Saga actually does a nice job explain this aspect:

——–

There are a few reasons why Saga could get your location wrong.

• The Problem: Your current location isn’t in our database. While Saga knows millions of places worldwide, chances are pretty good that your home, work, or favorite bench may not be in our database.

The Fix: It’s easy to add new places to Saga in the Change Place screen. And once you do, Saga should have no problem following you to all the places you go on a regular basis.

• The Problem: You may have a bad GPS fix. It happens. While GPS satellites are amazing, there are times that they’re just not accurate enough to figure out that you’re at the coffee shop and not the burger joint down the block.

The Fix: Buy yourself a personal GPS satellite. Or invest in a portable cell tower. Or just wait for a few minutes until you get a better connection. Saga will deal.

——-

• The Problem: You’re at a new or obscure spot. Saga can get confused if you go to a really obscure place. Especially if that really amazing, but unusual bar is right next to a super popular restaurant, shop, or landmark. When Saga can’t decide between two nearby places, it’ll often predict that you’re at the more popular place — just to be safe.

The Fix: Tell Saga where you really are. It’ll file that information away, and won’t make the same mistake twice. (Don’t worry, we won’t clue others into your secret little hideaway.)

——-

But here is where lifelogging behavioral is genius.

Because it is pop psychology <hence not really true> that ‘past behavior is the best indicator of future behavior.’

Oops. That psychology is not so much a fact.

Sorry. The truth is that the situation more often dictates behavior rather than anything we may have done in the past <and we also accumulate knowledge and therefore adapt>.

——–

“Researchers have determined that the situation plays a critical role in behavior. The situation is often more determinative than individual character traits. Personality theorist Walter Mischel – frequently cited in connection with the “best predictor” maxim – suggests that behavioral consistency is best described through if-then relationships between situations and behaviors, as in: “She does A when X, but B when Y.” So, a person may engage in heavy drug use when in the company of drug-using peers, but may stop using when she moves away and gets a fulfilling job.

———

This suggests lifelogging is genius. It can actually assist in managing some behavioral aspects at the prime time to do so, within context, situational context as a matter of fact. It can see past behavior, recent actions and movement behavior. It can predict by combining past behavior & situational context.

Ok. It cannot predict, but rather ‘smartly suggest.’

Anyway. While lifelogging sounds really cool <in one way> it also sounds quite ‘big brother-esque’ in another way. The app seeks patterns in human behavior recording how much time you spend going places and doing things. Based on this information the app then provides suggestions <and while we humans hate to admit it … we are quite susceptible to suggestions … uhm … particularly if they are based on past behavior>. Supposedly as we learn more about ourselves and what we do <behaviors> we would begin making decisions based on what they’ve learned about themselves and not what businesses are pushing down their throats.

I imagine we will all struggle a little bit on whether these apps predict things we would like to do or influence us in some way in ‘guiding’ us to some actions <this is a looped behavioral relationship difficult to discern beginning from end>.

As for the unequivocally good. There is a company called Geppetto Avatars which has developed a health care with virtual physician’s assistants <that quite feasibly could actually be smarter than any doctor in the world>. For example.

———

In one of the company’s allergy applications, a sympathetic young doctor named Sophie talks you through air quality and the pollen index in your neighborhood. Then, she makes sure that you’re taking your prescriptions right. When you tell her you’re feeling really bad, she gives a gentle “mmm-hmmm,” to let you know she’s been there and wants nothing more than to help you feel better.

———

Well.

After reading that and thinking ‘no computer can replace a doctor’ … I would suggest to you that here is where we face the true dilemma. When it comes to raw data — computers are smarter than us. The wealth of wisdom housed on connected hard drives around the globe is simply more than a human brain can handle. Therefore <using medicine as an example> when you go to the doctor no matter how smart & good the doctor is you really only have access to a fraction of knowledge.

That said.

People will be quick to point out the infamous ‘human factor.’ This is the tried & true anti-technology point of view that computer programs have always lacked the ability to read body language, non-verbal cues, and all those parts of communication that make us human.

Uh oh. THAT is changing too. As with most of these interactive type applications, the more you use it, the better job it does at reading you — picking up whether your voice is hoarse or your breathing labored, or whether you sound worried or anxious. There are programs in development now <some actually in market> which are able to detect your mood, read your state of mind, and respond accordingly with one of its tens of thousands of recorded answers. Yes. There are limits and having worked with a telemedicine app I have seen the human/technology dynamic firsthand, but we would be silly to ignore the value of a technology augmenting human expertise/wisdom.

Whew. So these new apps can also share your information with anyone you choose — from a health care professionals to your favorite store. On the flip side, these apps also share your information with people you don’t choose <this is the seamy side of data gathering>.

This is our brave new world. Regardless. Like it or not giving some technology some information about us will make our world, and Life, better.

Ok. I say all this because there is a shit load of discussion going on about privacy. I actually suggest this is going to be a clash of generations. Older folk think ‘big brother’ and ‘invading my privacy’ <I will also note here that these are the same people who cannot understand how young people share everything on twitter, snapshot and any social media channel>.

On the other hand younger people think … “hmmmmmmmmm … convenience.” Gratification faster.

Look. We older people don’t get it. We are not only afraid of ‘having someone know too much’ but also don’t get that younger people are just more comfortable with sharing some things than we are. By the way I would also suggest to old folk that younger people certainly understand limits with regard to what they share.

Simply because they share things we cannot fathom ever sharing … they will protect their ‘important secrets’ as well as anyone older.We are going to just throw up roadblocks and bitch & moan about privacy and all the shit that old people bitch about as young people pass them by. If you liked this, you may want to consider this.

Behavioral tools are here to stay and will be used by everyone, well, everyone being anyone under the age of say 35 or so.

I used to tell people we use research to INFORMdecisions and not MAKE decisions.

Then.

I told people we use numbers to INFORMdecisions and not MAKE decisions.

Then.

I told people we use data to INFORMdecisions and not MAKE decisions.

Now.

I tell people we use algorithms to INFORMdecisions and not MAKE decisions.

—-

Me

===============

“An idea of working based on three pillars: science, insight and faith. Science because I’m a social scientist by training. I believe in data, robustness of information, making sure you’re on the right track. Insight because if you’re not able to draw insights from research, you’re not a strategist, just someone observing the data. And faith because you never know what’s going to work, so you always need a bit of faith to get everyone started.”

—

Laura Chiavone

================

I believe great companies have one common infrastructure characteristic: culture. Good companies can be grounded in systems, processes, operations, etc, however, the step up to ‘great’ demands a culture (which is always implemented by people) to elevate the ‘infrastructure aspects. I thought of this because Mike Walsh has a new book, The Algorithm Leader, which suggests that the most successful companies of the future will support/augment/enhance that culture infrastructure – with algorithms. Now. Before anyone defaults into thinking this translates into “empty soul, technology order taker” company, or even holocracy (ponder how polar opposites could be relevant to the algorithm topic), let me share some thoughts on how I believe the thinking suggests structural value creation lift: for business & humans. To me this will occur through a balance of stability (knowledge infrastructure), uncertainty (quests versus missions) & understanding of Antifragility (selective redundancy maximizing untidy opportunities).

Let me pose some thoughts on the relationship between algorithms and antifragility upfront.

====================

“It is optionality that makes things work & grow.” AntiFragile

Maybe algorithms shouldn’t provide answers, but options. Maybe, more importantly, we become a little less comfortable with the need for construct and more comfortable with using algorithms as dynamic application of ‘movable construct’ at the right time & place.

“The antifragility of some comes necessarily at the fragility of others. In a system the sacrifice of some units – fragile units or people – are often necessary for the well-being of other units or the whole.” AntiFragile

Algorithms should enable an organization to identify progress paths to explore and discover rather than simply meet the needs of present identified ‘paths’ of progress or solve present identified issues & vulnerabilities.

=================

Full disclosure on my business beliefs. Throughout my career I have always felt comfortable by making the less certain decisions just certain enough that someone would go “well, it seems riskier, but, if you own it, go do it.” I say all that because I believe all Future of Work discussion should be grounded on the relationship between certainty & uncertainty – for the business, the people within the business organization and people’s minds/attitudes.

Algorithm leadership.

Most people want certainty therefore they let research make decisions, use numbers to make decisions, show data to make decisions and, increasingly, will suggest algorithms make decisions.

This is just a different type of efficiency couched in efficient operations. It will be called “efficient decision making.” The problem is this efficiency is just an attempt to strip a decision of uncertainty and, well, the best, most effective; decisions always carry along some burden of uncertainty.

The former is about figuring out how to maximize from disorder or uncertainty while the latter is not becoming too dependent upon seemingly ‘certainty.’

—

“The future of companies, regardless of size, will be shaped by algorithms.”

Mike Walsh

—

Ultimately, it will be humans who use the shapes created by algorithms to assess options, evaluate antifragile components and navigate asymmetrical uncertainty.

It within this dynamic environment in which we should note business is inherently fragile. HBR once said “business is a quivering mass of vulnerabilities.” I say that because as a pendulum swings one way it will inevitably want to swing the other way. We inherently feel the fragile pendulum swing and start seeking to build ‘un-natural’ antifragile aspects to create a sense of antifragility. Aspects like systems, process, rules, KPIs, data/dashboards and, yes, algorithms. Depending on how fragile we see, or feel, the business to be the more likely we use the created mechanisms to ‘tell us what to do.’ We must fight against those instincts.

Frankly, this is where generations DO become relevant in discussing business. Older workers, 50somethings, can be an impediment by seeing past experience as ‘certainty’ . On the other hand, some 50somethings can actually be a bridge between some certainty-type learnings and younger people who are more comfortable with disorder (but they don’t necessarily have the expertise do discern the best bridges between certainty & uncertainty).

Here is what I do know. Business people inherently abhor risk, business organizations inherently gravitate toward the ‘safest’ and numbers, research, data & algorithms look like life rafts in a risky, safe seeking business world. That said. I also know progress is rarely found without some risk and is often found on ‘not-the-safest’ path. Algorithms create a false sense of ‘right thing to do.’ any leader who leans on algorithms too much isn’t leading. Period.

Uncertainty leadership.

For this I lean in on How to Lead a Quest by Dr. Jason Fox. In times of uncertainty a business does not need business ‘heroes’ but rather people aligned on a quest and leaders who embrace the uncertainty of a complex interconnected multi-dimensional business world.

—-

“You must learn to be still in the midst of activity and to be vibrantly alive in repose.”

Indira Ghandi

—-

Contrary to popular belief I would suggest a highly successful algorithmic leader is likely a 50something who has navigated research, then data, the ‘dictating’ decisions challenge gauntlet, & who were more likely to see how seemingly unrelated disparate fragments could be coalesced into decisions and futures that the numbers/data didn’t completely support, but also did not completely discount. That ws a long winded way to introduce the idea of “data decipherers”. This type of leadership invaluable to an organization more & more steeped in numbers, dashboards, data & algorithms.

Jason Fox calls this “shining a light on the path before us.” leadership will not use algorithms for ‘squinting into the future but rather to identify the stepping stones in a sea of uncertainty. They will offer people moments of some certainty without promising a certain future nor even promising steady progress organizationally. It will be more about uncovering options, making choices to alleviate stressors, so that teams can breakthrough while others provide the organization with the redundancies to protect an organization from uncertainty vulnerabilities.

Here is what I do know. psychologically businesses will arc toward a belief algorithms will provide an increased tidiness and symmetry to business. that is a false sense of tidiness. Business will become increasingly untidy, the paths will become increasingly complex, therefore business will become increasingly uncertain with regard to the best, and proper steps, necessary for progress. Pragmatically business will need more, and better, leadership comfortable with uncertainty despite more numbers, data and algorithms.

Antifragile leadership.

Crisis, disaster resolution is rarely about resources available but rather people availability.

Here I lean in Taleb’s AntiFragile because I just reread it. We tend to build redundancies incorrectly, don’t assume for disorder well & only enhance fragility in plans. We too often see AntiFragile as a “leadership concept” when in reality it is best absorbed by Agile teams.

Risk management almost always solely focuses on resources necessary to sustain, and manage, foreseen crisis. As Taleb points out the largest flaw in that is most crisis do not look similar to ones on the past (they will have similarities but still be unique). In addition. Most organizations build in redundancy safety nets as, well, a net. Because we dislike fragility so much we start building in antifragile everywhere. We tend to think of leadership as “what if” redundancy design. Antifragile leadership should be more ‘aligning resources to meet different scenarios.” Some people would call this ‘agile.’ I would not. I would simply call this pivoting (I am old school). great businesses have always been able to pivot to meet market challenges and opportunities. This may be a hyperized version of that, but it is still pivoting – no more, no less.

This is where I would view using algorithms a little differently than other people. Algorithms tend to look at opportunities when I believe they could be better used to identify stress points and stressors. Most good leaders are best as problems solvers (that doesn’t mean they don’t optimize existing operations/situations just that where good leaders get paid the big bucks is getting moments/situations unstuck). I would also argue identifying stressors permits smarter experimenting and tinkering.

Here is what I do know. Algorithms, used properly, permit people to stop just optimizing for the present and start attempting to optimizing the future. Yes. It may mean being less efficient in the short term (sometimes), but, done well, will create a more effective long term construct.

Conclusion:

I think we will be “directed to act” by algorithms, but not managed by. The latter demands acceptance of algorithm as qualified to make us to do something behaviorally, the former demands we accept algorithms as something that ‘informs’ our doing. Somewhere in between is the decision of how much we, people, are accountable for thinking. Algorithms inherently encourage us to believe business is not best when it is random. Yet. The best businesses resist the urge to suppress randomness and permit people to be more accountable for some untidy decisions with some untidy outcomes.

All businesses will exist, in some form or fashion, grounded in algorithms. I am fairly sure that’s a given. The challenge will be to not get consumed by algorithms.

To realize algorithms do not give answers, but outline options.

To realize algorithms don’t define redundancies, but rather where and when to apply redundancy resources (therefore help to define how to create proper redundancies).

“Every single one of us is good at something. Some of us just give up on what that is before we even discover it. “

=

William Chapman

—- “I told her once i wasn’t good at anything.

She told me survival is a talent. You never need to apologize for how you chose to survive.”

=

Clementine von Radics

—

“To paraphrase someone smarter than me, who still knows nothing, the philosophical task of our age is for each of us to decide what it means to be a successful human being.

I don’t know the answer to that, but I would like to find out.”

=

Ottmer <the futurist>

—

Well. Let me begin by saying, well, being better is better.

Or better said: better is good.

In addition. Being good at something is good.

Those are two basic Life thoughts. Simple thoughts, but kind of important thoughts. Important because they are pervasive throughout civilization, culture, attitudes and certainly drives behavior.

Now. The most basic aspect of this whole thing of people wanting to be really good at something and, I imagine why people want to be passionate about something, is that they have experience with lack of passion. I say that last thought because <here is a Life truth> the reason why we’re not passionate about stuff we’re not really good at is because we aren’t <cannot be> passionate about stuff we suck at.

Here is where it gets a little screwy. Being good at something is a minefield mentally.

Huh? What do you mean <you ask me>??

How many times have you heard some version of the following phrases?

• “Everyone has a special skill!“

• “You just need to practice!“

• “You haven’t tried everything yet!“

• “You better work out what special skill you have and then use it for the rest of your life because if you don’t you’ll live in a dumpster fighting with cats for food!“

That trite advice is fine for people who are good at things, but what if you just suck at everything?

<or at least have sucked at everything you have tried to date>

Well. Here is the good news. It is next to impossible to suck at everything. It is much more likely that “… some of us just give up on what that is before we even discover it.”

As a corollary, in reality, it’s impossible to be good at every single thing you try.

Oh. But that doesn’t necessarily mean you suck. It’s all about perspective and how you define whether you’re good at something. For instance, are you basing how bad you are at something on your own standards or are you comparing yourself to others? If it’s the latter then you need to stop and remind yourself that we are all individuals. You’re not inferior or inept, you’re just different <kind of like snowflakes … okay … maybe not>.

Suffice it to say that insecurities and doubts limit your potential <regardless of whether you suck or are actually good> so if you intend to succeed at something you must first get rid of them.

Ah. But here is the curve ball Life throws at you <or is it a screwball??> — while you are figuring out what you are good at a whole shit load of incompetent assholes around you are trying to convince everyone what they are good at <of which they are actually not good at what they think they are>.

Incompetent people don’t know they are incompetent <in other words … they don’t think they suck>.

——

When asked, most individuals will describe themselves as better-than-average in areas such as leadership, social skills, written expression, or just about anything where the individual has an interest.

This tendency of the average person to believe he or she is better-than-average is known as the “above-average effect,” and it flies in the face of logic … by definition, descriptive statistics says that it is impossible absurdly improbable for a majority of people to be above average.

It follows, therefore, that a large number of the self-described “above average” individuals are in fact below average in those areas, and they are simply unaware of their incompetence.

——-

It seems that the reason for this phenomenon is obvious:

– The more incompetent someone is in a particular area, the less qualified that person is to assess anyone’s skill in that space, including their own.

– When one fails to recognize that he or she has performed poorly, the individual is left assuming that they have performed well.

Anyway. What this means is that the incompetent tend to grossly overestimate their skills and abilities.

—

“He felt he was himself and did not want to be otherwise. He only wanted to be better than he had been before. “

Leo Tolstoy

—

The Department of Psychology at Cornell University made an effort to determine just how profoundly one mistakenly overestimates one’s own skills in relation to one’s actual abilities.

They made the following predictions before the studies:

– Incompetent individuals, compared with their more competent peers, will dramatically overestimate their ability and performance relative to objective criteria.

– Incompetent individuals will suffer from deficient metacognitive skills, in that they will be less able than their more competent peers to recognize competence when they see it–be it their own or anyone else’s.

– Incompetent individuals will be less able than their more competent peers to gain insight into their true level of performance by means of social comparison information. In particular, because of their difficulty recognizing competence in others, incompetent individuals will be unable to use information about the choices and performances of others to form more accurate impressions of their own ability.

Rather than showcase the study and the results let me just say … they were correct in their assumptions.

Look. While I have spent a lot of time talking about incompetence and the incompetent, there is nothing more beautiful than watching competence in action. Especially if they are just good, not great, and have the awareness to build on their good in pursuit of … well … not great … but something better.

—-

“No one is good at everything, but everyone is good at something.”

any after school 1990’s special

—-

“Sucking is the first step to being sorta good at something”

Thorin Klosowski

—

And maybe that is why competence <or being good> is so beautiful to watch … it is the pursuit.

The pursuit? Being good at something mostly means you weren’t as good, or even sucked, at some point. This means the true competent people keep pushing.

Being good at something means no dumb questions, no dumb answers and no low <or stagnant> standards. And that is where I believe the whole concept of ‘being good at something’ should be grounded.

It’s not passion.

And, frankly, it may not even be something that comes easily to you.

It is more about holding yourself to some higher standard.

It is about the desire to keep pushing.

It is about being responsible for not quitting.

—-

“Hold yourself responsible for a higher standard than anybody else expects of you, never excuse yourself.”

Henry Ward Beecher

—–

In the end. Set aside ‘higher standards’ or ‘accepting you are good at something’ … in the end I respect … well … caring.

Giving a shit.

Or maybe call it … ‘nerdy as fuck about something.’

—-

“I respect people who get nerdy as fuck about something they love.”

Leah Raeder

——-

Caring enough about what you do is a good thing … and it makes you good at something.

It’s not passion.

It’s maybe not any real ability.

It’s just about the fact that you care.

By the way. Getting back to the first quote I used.

This also suggests, on those tough days and tough stretches in Life, simple survival is a talent because it means you care about Life.

Uhm. And that is a good thing to be good at.

Care about Life and never, never, apologize for how you choose to survive.

“The primary cause of unhappiness is never the situation, but thoughts about it.

Be aware of the thoughts you are thinking.”

–

Eckhart Tolle

====

I am not a big fan of simply saying “it is what it is” mostly because … well … most times it is much much more than that. However. Sometimes. Yes. Sometimes it “is” simply because it, well, is. At these times I would note we get unhappy. Usually not because of the situation, but rather because of the thought behind it.

<please note: I imagine I have just bastardized Tolle’s real thinking, but it fits what I want to say>

Anyway. I attribute the our true unhappiness behind the thinking of “it is what it is” to one of two things:

– Occam’s razor:

This is the thought that “the simplest explanation that fits the facts is usually right.”

I like to think it is called Occam’s razor probably because the thought cuts straight to the truth, but ‘experts’ suggest the term razor refers to distinguishing between two hypotheses either by “shaving away” unnecessary assumptions or cutting apart two similar conclusions.

Whatever.

Sometimes the simplest explanation is all there is. It is what it is.

And we hate not only Occam, but his frickin’ razor.

– Illogical pragmatism:

Some things just cannot be explained. It sounds illogical, but, pragmatically, any explanation is illogical. Or just illogically complex. Therefore, there is no explanation. Pragmatically, it is just what it is. Illogical as it may sound. And while we like pragmatism, we hate anything illogical. And we particularly hate if the pragmatic is illogical.

That said. Very few things frustrate us more than when there is no explanation for something. It drives business people frickin’ crazy.

Oh. What do business people hate maybe even worse? That Occam thing. The simple concise explanation. The understanding that simpler explanations are, other things being equal, generally better than more complex ones is not an idea we really like in business. Yeah. We talk about simplicity in a fond way, but most times we hate it. More often we struggle to accept the simple and revel in the complex.

This love of complex really has nothing to do with solutions but rather we like having things explained to us. That is typically where things get complex. Simple explanations are, well, unbelievable <crazy, huh?>.

Now. I actually believe we manage this fairly well in everyday life, but really suck at this in business.

Whew. “It is what it is” at work? Never. Or maybe at best … rarely.

My point? Most things have an explanation.Let’s say maybe 90% or so.

Most things obviously have real definitive explanations and some things have enough of an explanation that they have some edge or tangibleness to them, but it’s the stuff in the middle that requires a more subtle explanation or even an admittance of sheer uncertainty of “why is this as it is.”

Ah. That’s 10% or so.

Well. Sometimes things just “are.” And explanations are too complex … and frankly … unnecessary <albeit frustrating to not have one>.

Sure. We should be diligent with regard to inevitable straying into a complacent belief believing that things ‘just are’ and there is nothing you can do <or should do> to change it to make it better or to actually avoid true explanations where they are merited. And while it frickin’ kills me to suggest “it is what it is” … some things just are, and no matter how much you wish they were different, they’re not.

That said. We have difficulty in trying to understand that there can be some things that fall in the non-explanation category <that wretched ‘middle’> that it is neither in the good nor the bad category <by the way … not being able to explain does not make it inevitably bad>.

We seem too often to have to have an explanation to satisfy us. And it’s this sense of ‘satisfaction seeking’ that we should be wary of <or maybe it simply leads us astray and we should be wary of getting lost – insert ‘weeds’ here ->.

The unexplained is very unsatisfying. Someone wrote this:

“The Unexplained” has a somewhat sinister connotation to our adult minds because it puts us on shaky ground. Our reason has nothing to hang on to. When circumstances are not to our liking, we are likely to use phrases like, “I demand an explanation” or “You’ve got some explaining to do!” Of course this has not so much to do with shedding some light on the situation as it has to do with making ourselves feel safer, more secure in the midst of something which has inconvenienced us.

We can even become suspicious, paranoid, fearful and neurotic if our dependence on explanations is too strong and we cannot actually find one.

In my words … it can kind of drive us nuts. We need to realize that sometimes we put way too much emphasis on trying to figure out what is right and wrong … or even worse … seeking an explanation for something that just ‘is.’

Look. With so much unpredictability and seeming chaos in business <because shit moves so fast> sometimes the explanation really doesn’t matter.

It just is.

It is the way it’s supposed to be.

It is just the way it happened.

All the over analysis, over thinking, over planning, over explaining doesn’t accomplish anything. While it may make us feel better putting an ultimate <but incredibly convoluted and complex> explanation on something, sometimes it doesn’t accomplish anything <useful>.

In fact all that thinking trying to identify ‘the explanation’ can freeze you to a point where you get stuck over thinking — all in the attempt in trying to rationalize everything.

You can get overwhelmed not by the situation <or the amount of situations> but simply by the lack of explanation.

You can get overwhelmed not by the chaos of complexity, but rather by the act of ignoring, or even arguing against, the simple solution <the fact it ‘just is’>.

So much of our stress and anxiety comes from our attempts at finding an explanation or even a simpler ‘is it good or bad’ definition to the challenge or situation. Yeah. We like things to be a certain way <mostly not simple>. Yeah. We like the feeling that things in life should be generally good. And, yeah, explanations help us define good or bad <or at least help us define blame or resolution or whatever>. Yeah. We just like explanations. Simple, complex, any size shape or form … we will take anyone we can get.

Regardless.

The bottom line? We are reluctant to accept things that cannot be defined or explained. We hate “it just is what it is” things.

Look. Explanations are good … and bad.

Good in that it helps to have some boundaries and guidelines and … well … definition <or Life would just be some nebulous blob … disgusting thought, huh?>.

Bad in that some things are simply undefinable therefore forcing an explanation into a ‘it is what it is’ scenario creates some unfair & untrue conclusions.

Anyway.

Some things are simpler than we make them out to be.

And some things just cannot be rationally explained.

And sometimes it just isn’t worth investing the energy trying to rationalize it.

Up to a point a man’s life is shaped by environment, heredity, and the movements and changes in the world around him. Then there comes a time when it lies within his grasp to shape the clay of his life into the sort of thing he wishes to be. Only the weak blame parents, their race, their times, lack of good fortune, or the quirks of fate.

Everyone has it within his power to say, ‘This I am today; that I will be tomorrow.’

The wish, however, must be implemented by deeds.”

–

Louis Lamour

===============

So. This is about living Life and personal velocity (progress with momentum). I have written about self esteem and self image and living life, but until now I have never found a quote that summarizes a belief I have always had lurking in the back of my head.

“Then there comes a time when it lies within his grasp to shape the clay of his life into the sort of thing he wishes to be.”

How awesome is that? (pretty awesome)

It is absolutely true that a lot of what may hold us back from our dreams, or maybe more importantly, being whatever it is we want to be isn’t our fault <or in our control>. Life throws a shitload of shit at us. It would be foolish to not recognize that.

But.

The days when nothing seems to go right.

The days where dreams seemed to have vanished.

The days where ‘not drowning’ is the focus instead of ‘swimming.’

All those days are gonna happen – to all of us. And it is on these days where it becomes really really easy to focus on excuses. But. We do have power to shape our tomorrows. Ignore the excuses and recognize that even if circumstances make things difficult, improving things is NOT impossible.

Sure. Sometimes a little ingenuity is required. Sometimes you almost have to trick circumstances. Sometimes you have to zig when Life zags and sometimes you have to take some risks and get a little lucky.

Which leads me to these words:

“That I am today; that I will be tomorrow.”

Absolutely … most people underestimate what they can do today.

Absolutely … most people over estimate what they can do tomorrow.

Despite that … it still comes down to two things: action and objectives.

Actions.

What I am tomorrow depends on what I do today. My actions today make me who I am tomorrow. You get it.
This is all about first step, baby. Takin’ that first step. You constantly hear “I’ll do it tomorrow”. And when it doesn’t happen tomorrow, it becomes the next tomorrow and the next and …. well … you get it (and I will explain why under objectives).

But. While you hear that … what is actually the truth? What do people really do? (and you just may not always see it)

Here is the truth behind actions and this thought. People who decide mentally to “do something” actually, uhm, do something. No shit. They do take action. They do begin to “shape the clay of their life to become what they want to be.” They do.

Then what is the problem?

Objectives.

Doing is often dependent upon how we view our objectives and this sometimes gets mired down in meeting the sometimes farcical absurd expectations in the mind. That said. Let me take a minute on ‘objectives.’ Scott H Young wrote in May 2006, in a piece called “Balancing Today and Tomorrow“, about a nifty concept called “velocity based thinking (or goal setting)” versus positional goals:

—————————

How is it possible to balance living in each moment and the concept of personal growth and improvement? Doesn’t personal development imply a certain dissatisfaction with where you are in life? At the very least, doesn’t an obsession with personal growth indicate that you are constantly living in the future, rather than enjoying each moment? How can we remove this apparent dichotomy and get the improvement we desire along with satisfaction now? In other words, how can we live for today and still strive for tomorrow?

The old position based paradigm told us to focus on where we are in life. If we have a big house, a nice family and are in good health, then we can be happy. If we are poor, miserable and alone then we are depressed. Pretty simple. In this paradigm, our main focus is on our current position.

Some take this position based thinking to a slightly higher level when they don’t think about where they are but where they are going. Instead these people draw their level of happiness from the position they feel they will be in the future. Although this is an improvement, the cost of being unsatisfied with today is simply too high a price to pay for this paradigm.

There is an alternative paradigm, however. This is a velocity based paradigm. In this paradigm, where you are doesn’t matter. It doesn’t even matter where you are going to end up. From this perspective, our focus not where we are going, but rather, the rate we are getting there. This perspective tells us that being homeless or a millionaire makes no difference. It is only the rate at which they are improving that distinguishes them.

The major distinction between a velocity based goal and a position based one is mostly in how you view the goal. Positional goals are usually viewed as a means to achieve something. If I set a goal to lose x pounds in three months, then what I am pursuing is the goal itself. Velocity based goals take a completely different approach. The purpose of a velocity based goal is to serve to direct, focus and amplify the growth you are experiencing right now.

Imagine life is like climbing an infinitely large cliff side. Positional thinking tells you to try and get as high up the cliff as you can. Positional goals are used to reach new plateaus on the cliff. Velocity based thinking tells us that getting really high up on the cliff is irrelevant given its infinite nature. Instead velocity based thinking tells us that the true experience of life has to come from the rate at which we are climbing the cliff. Sitting at one notch of the cliff for too long is boring and unsatisfying regardless of your height. Velocity based goals in this sense are not used to reach the plateaus themselves, these goals are used to encourage, push and measure the rate at which you are climbing.

The key difference between positional goals and velocity based goals is simple. If you fail to achieve a positional goal, this is usually very demotivating. This is often why so many new goal setters fail to continue with the practice. The pain of failing to achieve when you’ve tried your best is often too great. Velocity based goals remove this problem entirely. Because the goal was simply a servant of directing and pushing your own growth, as long as you know you were trying your best (maximum velocity possible) then the goal was successful regardless of whether you underestimated the deadline necessary.

A velocity based paradigm is actually far more effective in improving our position.

The reason is actually rather simple. Positional based thinking is built on the notion of competition. As a result, we strive to make leaps ahead in our position based on where we are compared to others. If we are on the top then we slow down, for what is the point of trying really hard when you are already in the lead? If we are on the bottom, negativity and pessimism often cripple our growth. Position based thinkers tend to only achieve a maximum velocity when they feel they need to increase their position, yet that positional increase is achievable. Velocity based thinking doesn’t have this weakness. People who truly live this ideal are at a maximal velocity all of the time. Being at the top or bottom holds no distinction to these people. Rich or poor, strong or weak, healthy or ill these people are always traveling at a speed which is the most they can possibly achieve.

—————————-

I have always been a Velocity believer but what I like about personal velocity is it isn’t about frickin’ milestones and moving up the ladder and crap like that. It is about actions and objectives in a “movement” framework. And movement at your own pace. Its not a competition, but rather just with a goal of improving personal being. Judging yourself against … well … yourself I guess.

And with that I get to complete the circle on this quote and thought:

“That I am today; that I will be tomorrow.”

The only really important word L’Amour uses throughout this thought is “I.”

It’s not about competition.

It’s not about goals and objectives.

It is about I. And what “I” wants <or needs>.

That said. Life is tough enough without having to have someone else tell you how to ‘progress’ personally. Go your own speed. Fuck what anyone says.

Sure. Business weighs you down with meaningless milestones & expectations all the time.

Sure. Society, in general, crams goals down your throat all the time.

And, sure, becoming who you want to be “tomorrow” takes lots and lots of work.

But. I would suggest you are actually minimizing your chances of success if you always go the speed of what everyone else is demanding of you. Maximizing your ‘self success’ is mots likely found in finding, and going, your own velocity.

Anyhow.

I love this quote.

Love it mostly because I like the way it gives the truth instead of some pithy inspirational flippant quote. I like it because while it frames time in a today-tomorrow dimension it doesn’t say how fast it should be, or needs to be, done. You choose the velocity in which it happens.

“There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things.”

—

Niccolo Machiavelli

===========

“For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order.”

—

Niccolò Machiavelli

======

So. This is a discussion I had with myself recently with regard to change and creating a new order of things.

The mental discussion centered on two questions:

is it really chaos <blank slate change> ?

or is it more often reordering <assigning disparate ‘things’ into a new alignment> ?

I thought about this as I scanned the words of two of the most skewered policy makers of all time – Machiavelli and Kissinger. King makers and country breakers are thoughts that come to mind with those two names.

And, yet, both Diplomacy <Kissinger> and The Prince <Machiavelli> are must reads for anyone interested in foreign policy and diplomatic leadership. They both made me rethink some things I have thought about change and leading it.

The main thing I thought of was … well … the ‘leading’ part. Leading is what leaders do. That’s what you get paid to do. You see where you want the business to go, look at what needs to change to make it happen and then start leading the change.

Both Kissinger and Machiavelli discussed this as ‘shaping the arc of history.’ I would imagine neither would balk at a statement like this …“we will move forward, because if we do not move forward, what is to be said about us?”

Now.

If you read any Machiavelli he can come across as an arrogant immoral power hungry egotistical asshat.

If you read any Kissinger he can come across as an arrogant immoral power hungry egotistical asshat.

But both also can be read as incredibly smart insightful global thinkers whose mindset was always shaping the arc of history and countries rather than adapting to the world at hand. It is within the ‘shaping’ where both of them identified leadership. Their version of ‘shaping’ meant doing things to instigate change as well as envisioning what could be and stepping in to guide toward it or stop it from happening <which is easy to criticize in reflecting>.

Machiavelli unequivocally espoused an amoral approach to obtaining power and counseled the ambitious Prince to be prepared to commit heinous acts, acts most of us would not consider viable actions to take, in order to rise in position.

I am not espousing that.

The bigger learnings arise as you dig a little deeper into what he writes where you will find the wiser kernels of truth.

The biggest truth? To be a reformer, to be a change agent, to lead in the introduction of a new order of things, well, you have to shape the arc of change that others are instigating.

Ah. Now this is where I had to start doing some rethinking in my own head. While I do prescribe to the ‘shape the arc of history & change’ leadership thought, I, as most of us do, see this as envisioning and creating the necessary change not shaping the arc of change. This is where change leadership gets tricky <if you accept that a leader wants to shape the arc of change>.

There are millions of articles, billions of pieces of advice, hundreds of designed programs and dozens of studied cases with regard to leading change. Leadership change is big time business.

Well. Here is the problem with all that change wisdom.

Unfortunately.

Most change is actually not leader driven, but rather people driven.

Yeah. Sometimes we, as leaders, are so focused on the change we want to make or encourage we ignore, or are oblivious to, the never-ending embers of change within the population of the business.

And, yes, I purposefully used “embers.”

Every healthy organization is teeming with ideas of what should be done as well as about what is being done — let’s call these ‘the embers within the population.’ Inevitably the embers will die, flame up and then out or become a forest fire. Part of what a leader needs to discern is which fires will flame out on their own, which flames may start burning uncontrollably and which fires should be nurtured.

But, suffice it to say, embers exist in any organization and population worth a shit. Some is discontent, some may simply be passion that just needs to be directed & focused and some, well, some are the embers of a real revolution <real change>. And even revolution can take on different faces.

There can be an organizational changing revolution — one which demands leadership to change or die.

There can be an organizational shifting revolution — one which demands the leadership to recognize a new & better way of doing things or thinking about things.

But when change comes from the population … leaders get uncomfortable. This discomfort is beyond the simple ‘it was not my idea’ crap.

Think about it this way.

A leader’s natural reaction to almost anything is to control.

Out of control = bad.

Control = good.

The difficulty with people driven change is that it automatically falls into the ‘out of control’ bucket in a leaders head because they <a> didn’t think of it or <b> they didn’t instigate it or <c> they didn’t even create the arc.

This is where I really needed to think. Because, as a leader, I could discuss leadership driven change until the end of time. But managing and guiding and fostering population driven change? Well. That’s different. Other than ‘idea boxes’ and ‘brain storming meetings’ and ‘organizational improvement ideas’ most of us leader types don’t actively think about change management as ‘employee revolution management.’

It demands a different set of skills. You would have to dump many of the tried & true tools. You would have to maybe not throw out the old handbook of ‘change management’, but you certainly have to put on more of a ‘herder cap’ and a ‘respond to the context and situation hat’ rather than leading and ‘linear responses.’

Now. I will suggest that any leader who wants to keep their sanity shouldn’t invest a shitload of energy trying to uncover embers. I would rather suggest time is better spent continuously feeding oxygen into the population so that the embers which could flame up do so and the ones which will inevitably suffocate and smother themselves will do so on their own.

<everyone should note that dictator and autocrat type leaders would absolutely hate that last thought>

Good leaders just need to face the fact that sometimes opportunity does not always arise when you want it to. Sometimes you need to create the opportunity <because it is the right time for you> and sometimes you have shape the opportunity that is placed in your lap.

I will say that population revolutions, more often than not, are grounded in some real pragmatic and positive thoughts. The direction may be misguided but the embers are real and warm and worth nurturing.

I say that because this means revolutions driven by people more often than not exist in a structured world, not chaos, defined by some natural laws of behavior which are sometimes missed because of the revolutionary weird, incredible things that begin happening. A leader has to try to make sense of all aspects and bring the worlds together to create the necessary change <in this case … this is where the leadership occurs and not in the definition of the change>.

I will also suggest, as I think about his, it is often not productive to try to understand and explain the origins and consequences of ‘embers’ in any sensible way.

It is not productive because where you isolate the ‘logical beginnings’ you will most likely be creating ‘logic’ which wasn’t really there — it only exists in hindsight. That thought can be maddening to a leader. We like logic, pragmatism and reasons to point to. But change, when driven by the population, is not your change to define … it is to guide.

The reasons are the reasons, their reasons are their reasons … but as long as the change is reasonable and offers a reason to encourage … the origins have little relevance. You have to jump on board, buckle up, hold on tight and shape an arc of history, of change, which you do not instigate but want to ‘lead.’

In all of this <going back to both Kissinger & Machiavelli> I am not advocating suspending commonplace ethics as a means to achieve your ends, but I will suggest innovating and radical change is hard. It’s hard not because people don’t like change but because, more often than not, real change translates into real loss to those embracing the ‘old order.’ Humans, in general, have a strong aversion to loss and those who actually have a lot to lose … well … they have a lot stronger aversion to loss.

That means they will do their best to resist and block it.

Uhm. That includes us leaders too.

If it is revolution change, change driven by the population and not by us, we actually have the potential to lose a lot. And to grasp this opportunity you have to face your natural strong aversion to the potential loss. This is where I believe Kissinger& Machiavelli missed a point <well … they may not have missed it … their vision was always to shape and not adapt to what is being shaped>.

You cannot always control everything. Sometimes you have to choose what you will control and accept what you cannot.

And that is why I vehemently balk when Machiavelli counsels leaders to avoid the common values of justice, mercy, temperance, wisdom, and love of their people in preference to the use of cruelty, violence, fear, and deception. That is a sign of ‘control everything’ to, me …and control at any cost.

I don’t buy it. I don’t like it. And I will not do it.

While Machiavelli certainly views implementing a ‘new order’ under the guise of a realist or a pragmatist, I believe there are certain rules of engagement that must be maintained to insure an outcome that retains some purpose <and soul> beyond simple greed or personal enhancement.

Change comes from a variety of directions. And I can almost guarantee that you, as a leader, are not the only ones facing major strategic decisions – in general and with change. You can assume all actors in the play are contemplating change & decisions <hence the embers>. And every ember is building to their fire in some fundamental way. Deciding its place in the order of things. deciding the goals of any confrontations. Deciding its purpose. Deciding its meaning and, ultimately, deciding the meaning of their revolution and grappling with an aftermath often difficult to envision.

That is where this type of change leadership occurs. Envisioning the aftermath of something you didn’t instigate. Envisioning your relationship to a revolution not fully settled and not fully defined.

You have to assume the responsibility of a signpost to an awakened change which is being driven by the needs & wants & desires of the general population/people. This actually means you have got to fundamentally rethink who you are as a leader as well as how you envision your role as a leader. In this case leading means envisioning where it all goes rather than having thought out where it goes <and pointing the way>.

A change agent leader responding to a desire for revolution needs shed some of the current situation where it’s appropriate and convert the embers & fire into efforts to stop the bad and force the good.

Look.

Taking the lead in the introduction of a new order of things can take on a variety of leadership vectors. One is creating & shaping and another is guiding & shaping.

… a longing for something so indefinite as to be indefinable. Love affairs, miseries of life, the way things were, people already dead, those who left and the ocean that tossed them on the shores of a different land – all things born of the soul that can only be felt.

==

Anthony De Sa

———–

“He marveled at the indifference of the world, the way it kept on, despite everything.”

==

Anthony Doerr

————-

Ok. I am fairly sure everyone desires the greater intangible things in life: the things, or thing, you just cannot put words to but you know is out there and you will “know it when you see it or feel it”. Unfortunately, well, the intangible also tends to be elusive.

It is also very very difficult to clearly define or put words to it <hence many people choose to focus on some specific milestone or objective>. I think I would suggest the intangible is elusive because the world is indifferent to our desires. What do I mean? It is relatively uninterested in offering the intangible in tangible form. The world simply tends to fork over tangible crap to us and it is up to us to peel it all back and bask in the intangible good stuff found within.

But that takes time and is more difficult.

Therefore. We tend to seek tangibles. And more tangibles. And then more tangibles. This means that we are almost destined, despite that in our soul we deeply long for something indefinable, to settle for tangible proof that we are showing some progress.

I do not really care what the proof is … just that we settle for it.

What Is Elusive? The definition of “elusive” is:

elusive: evasive, slippery, difficult to find, catch or achieve

Speaking of desiring proof – that is why we often create deadlines. Deadlines are powerful things as we face our longing for the indefinite <and the definite>. More often than not we use the deadline to insure we do not waste too much time on something we are not sure can be easily defined. But think about what a deadline really is.

Today the term is now used, mostly, to refer to “the time by which something must be completed.” In the historical sense a deadline refers to the boundary around a prison which, if prisoners crossed it, they’d be shot by the guards. Wow. Okay. So while deadlines are everywhere in the business world we no longer get shot it does seem like we just get shit when we cross a deadline.

Now. Psychologists have done a boatload of research on the effect of deadlines on people. Invariably the majority of people actually improve performance as a deadline nears. They explain this by something called “the Yerkes-Dodson law.” This law suggests performance increases as arousal <excitement, stress, tension, nervousness> increases. Well. At least up to a point from which performance declines as the person, and senses, are overwhelmed.

Basically this suggests we become more aware of consequences of failing to complete what we want to do as time slips away and act upon that awareness <with some focus because the consequences of not meeting the deadline while may not include being shot certainly includes a load of shit>.

In addition. Deadlines tend to eliminate procrastination mostly because we dislike the unpleasant feeling of consequences of not meeting a deadline. Stick with me because this all has to do with our longing for something indefinite.

Ok. Now comes the next horrible thing that happens as we pursue what we truly long for. We have a deadline in our heads and we encounter something called the planning fallacy. We suck, extraordinarily so, at estimating how much time to allocate for things because our brains, in general, are quite overly optimistic with regard to our own capabilities. Therefore we underestimate time. In addition we do this because our brains have a nasty habit of looking back on past poor time allocation and failed deadlines and blame external causes <and yet the next time the thought will be that this time we will be unencumbered therefore meet our deadline successfully>.

All of this circles back to that ‘arousal’ consequence, which we hate, as it rears its ugly head one more time as our optimistic assumptions crash into the actual reality of the situation. I bring it back to ‘arousal’ because all that painful consequence stuff occursWHEN YOU ARE PURSUING A TANGIBLE GOAL.

The waters get even murkier if you are setting some deadline on how much time you want to spend on pursuing this elusive indefinite thing. But. We are truly optimistic folk. Well. At least some of us are. What one person thinks of as elusive and indefinite another sees hope and opportunity. And depending on where you are in Life your feeling can change. The one consistent steady thing is that at all times there is a longing for something more, some longing for something so indefinite as to be undefinable.

So what can we do? We have to take responsibility for our lives and choices and this indefinite thing. We cannot subvert the longing and suffocate it with the tangible.

To be clear <part 1>. The longing should not dictate our lives and behavior, but it also should not play a role in our lives and actions.

To be clear <part 2>. That isn’t easy. Life can throw a bunch of curve balls and … well … some high hard fastballs. The biggest fastball Life throws at you is what I call “Life comparison shopping.” You shop your life against other lives.

In the good ole days it was called “keeping up with the Joneses” <using one’s neighbors as a standard of comparison for the consumption of material goods>. This sounds silly, but we are human, and it is hard not to notice when your neighbor buys something. But they are not the only standard of comparison. Television shows, magazines, websites, and pretty much anywhere you consume information inundates us with stories about what other people have, wear and do.

Yes. While we know we shouldn’t care mostly because, while we may not articulate it this way, we know conspicuous consumption ubiquitous.

Tangible proof is, well, tangible proof.

The tendency to compare yourself to to other people is fundamental and is going to occur whether or not we intend it. And, yes, in some cases, social comparison is useful. In the absence of objective standards of success, social comparison helps us to evaluate and improve ourselves. And yet, at the same time, sometimes social comparison suggests you are inferior in some aspect <wealth, intelligence, appearance, etc.> which can create some feelings of envy or ‘lesser than.’ Okay. This is where the tangible proof path absolutely frickin’ kills us on this pursuit of something undefinable.

“Lesser than” feelings erode the belief you can ever attain what you long for <I mean your head says “c’mon … if you cannot even be good enough to do that how can you be good enough to attain something you cannot even define .. all you can do is just discuss as something you ‘long for’?”>.

Then we remain on the middle path too long. We start missing out on the dreams. We shelve the longing and inevitably that which is undefinable remains undefined and that which we long for simply becomes an immature pursuit for only those who are dreamers. You justify this decision, and personal behavior, as you walk the middle path by always thinking that eventually you will get around to pursuing this longing … and eventually reach this undefinable thing that will makes you happy.

And then time is gone. And the longing, which is easily dismissed as “shit, I couldn’t even define it anyway”, is still there but the opportunity is gone.

Look. Pursuing something so indefinite as to be indefinable is tough. It is not for the faint of heart. To do so you need to accept that while some results are very tangible others are less so. The secret is to get your head straight from the outset on how ‘performance’ is to be measured then build in the means for measuring activity. I say that because I think the measurement is much more important than setting a deadline.

I mean, well, how can you set a deadline on something you cannot even define? <someone smarter than I would have to figure that out>.

In the end I use this quote:

====

“A rat race is for rats. We’re not rats. We’re human beings. Reject the insidious pressures in society that would blunt your critical faculties to all that is happening around you, that would caution silence in the face of injustice lest you jeopardise your chances of promotion and self-advancement.This is how it starts, and, before you know where you are, you’re a fully paid-up member of the rat pack. The price is too high.”

Jimmy Reid

=====

Part of being a human being is this inherent longing for “something.” Maybe it is captured in that one word: saudade.

“all things born of the soul that can only be felt.”

I am not suggesting we shouldn’t do the day to day stuff that needs to be done nor am I suggesting that deadlines aren’t quite useful for some day to day shit, but I am suggesting that stuff shouldn’t be done at the sacrifice of our longing for “all things born of the soul that can only be felt.”

“Sometimes I wonder whether I have any real intelligence or if I just have enough random bits of surface knowledge to bullshit my way through most things.”

========================

“Do I contradict myself? Very well, then, I contradict myself; I am large — I contain multitudes. “

—

Walt Whitman

===========
“ …In reality I did not go to the monastery to become an ascetic, but to gather those parts of my soul which had scattered…”

——

Nikos Kazantzakis

====================

“I have nothing to offer anyone except my own confusion.”

——

Jack Kerouac

==============

Ok. This is a quasi-reflective piece as well as some thoughts on what I think is important about how we approach people and Life.

I like messy people. People who don’t fit in a box or stay between the lines, but whose integrity is greater than any rule book and whose loyalty is stronger than blood. People who are smart but just aren’t sure if they ae really that smart & just have enough random pieces of knowledge to bullshit their way thru Life & business. That said the closest I could find to talking about these thoughts today seemed to be found in something called INTP. It is a personality designation. One of 16 <I think>.

Let me be honest upfront. I am not particularly fond of personality testing. Not because I don’t think it can create some interesting self-reflective thoughts but rather because far too many people start using it as an explanation of self <and actually falling back on it as excuses for why and how they do things> rather than simply viewing it as ‘well, shit I should think about with regard to myself.’

It can quite easily become like looking at your horoscope and seeing shit simply because it fits what you want it to fit.

In addition it can become far too easy to confuse self-descriptions with skills. It is a false belief that some self-description correlates with having a skill.

Simplistically, personality tests should dictate nothing. They determine nothing in your life. They do not care about you. They are only indicative of personality traits and not behavioral decisions.

I imagine my real point is that if you’re lazy, or detail oriented, or easily angered or easily bored it is your own fault and not because of something that some personality test told you.

But. To be sure. It always seems to make for some fun reading. Ok. Back to INTP:

The INTP personality type is fairly rare, making up only three percent of the population, which is definitely a good thing for them, as there’s nothing they’d be more unhappy about than being “common”. INTPs pride themselves on their inventiveness and creativity, their unique perspective and vigorous intellect. Usually known as the philosopher, the architect, or the dreamy professor.

This makes it ironic that INTPs’ word should always be taken with a grain of salt – it’s not that they are dishonest, but people with the INTP personality type tend to share thoughts that are not fully developed, using others as a sounding board for ideas and theories in a debate against themselves rather than as actual conversation partners.

This may make them appear unreliable, but in reality no one is more enthusiastic and capable of spotting a problem, drilling through the endless factors and details that encompass the issue and developing a unique and viable solution than INTPs – just don’t expect punctual progress reports.

People who share the INTP personality type aren’t interested in practical, day-to-day activities and maintenance, but when they find an environment where their creative genius and potential can be expressed, there is no limit to the time and energy INTPs will expend in developing an insightful and unbiased solution

———————–

So when you take the MBTI, the personality chosen for you is based on your preference in four dichotomies which are called “preferences” because it simply means you prefer one over the other, not that you use one exclusively over the other.

Take “Introvert” and “Extrovert” for example. These two major traits are very commonly known and have recognized stereotypes. An extrovert is typically described a happy, energetic, party-goer, while introverts are described more as bookworms, loners, shy, and quiet. However, it’s not as black and white as the words and stereotypes make it seem. Everybody has a little bit of both. You simply get the “Introverted” designation because of what the test perceives your preference to be.

Anyway.

Back to quote. Random bits. I question everything, but I question myself more than anything else. I don’t understand how people can have strong opinions about things that they don’t fully understand. There are so many facets & bits to every issue that I find it extremely difficult to not constantly revise my opinion based on new information. That is basically learning to unlearn. If I thought about it I bet I have a theory for everything, even have a theory for why I have a theory for everything. I’m always modifying my outlook on life & things as I gather new information.

To be clear. That is not intelligence.

I say that because not only do I think I’m not incredibly intelligent but basing your self-worth on your intelligence is a dangerous thing (because there will always be someone smarter than you and there will always be intellectual challenges too great for your mind).

I said that because the one thing I absolutely can’t tolerate is condescension. It shows dismissal of alternative ideas and intolerance for intelligent discourse. Condescension also creates a barrier to novel experiences which force you to think about things from a new perspective <leading to new insights>.

How does this benefit me? I live in a world of possibilities.

How does his NOT benefit me? Choosing only one and dedicating myself to it fully makes me feel trapped. I always need a way out.

====

i have survived
so many fires,
i can no longer tell
if i am alive
or if i’m still burning.

— Pavana पवन

=====

But having a way out means smartly finding your way in as well as smartly seeking a way out. Oddly, this sometimes means you can look both spontaneous and cautious depending on who is looking at you and what circumstances you may be dealing with. I appear spontaneous to those who don’t know any better, but I’m actually extremely calculated & thoughtful. So let’s call it “calculatedly spontaneous”. It means being deliberate — with haste in my actions. It’s weird. A lot of people perceive my actions as unstructured or random, but they really are not. I meander, but I do so with purpose.

When confronted with a new obstacle, I may initially appear too still & maybe slightly indifferent but all the while I was paying attention and sniffing out subtleties in the obstacle the whole time in seeking a way out.

This also means I require a job me to actually use my brain and have the opportunity to work on a wide range of activities. Monotony kills me.

I’m not one of those wicked smart people we all seem to know neither am I the dullest knife in the drawer. My grades were never stellar, but I was able to find effective paths between two points and do exactly what’s necessary to take it. I’m not into overachieving I am into achieving smart shit like, well, anything that requires me using my brain.

I do know Curiosity is possibly the most important characteristic of anyone who is good at what they do <in Life & in business>. But “good” comes in a variety of shapes & sizes and sometimes those shapes & sizes are crafted by one thing: do we care more about the question or the answers. What I mean by that is finding truth, or the best answers, is very rarely a linear process. Therefore the question & answer sequencing to that truth is not linear. Oops. I tend to believe most people use question & answer in a “that begets that” way. All in all, that means believing the answer is more important than the question. All that mean is if you get the first question right <and a shitload of us do not> the truth is arrived at like in a sequence of dominos. I’m always going to be searching for the next piece of the puzzle, and that’s both an exhilarating and depressing proposition in that “what’s next attitude” almost demands little reflection on achievements.

What a self-reflective post today. Oddly it’s been sitting in my draft folder for years staring at me daring to be written. Today was the day.

“Sometimes I wonder whether I have any real intelligence or if I just have enough random bits of surface knowledge to bullshit my way through most things.”

Generally said if the affected person should free himself from materialism or minor important things, thus set his mind over those and hence care about more crucial things, not seldom his own well-being for his plans on particular upcoming events might seriously damage his health, his reputation or the like, thus could cause him more harm than intended before – therefore mind over matter settles the issue in advance by barring the person from dealing with the issue(s) himself.

====

Mind Over Matter Urban Dictionary

———-

Well.

Mind over matter may be one of the most important trite quips in human history.

I will point out that despite its overuse and triteness, the entire concept of ‘getting your head straight’ or ‘getting your head in the game’ is maybe the most important Life & professional advise you will ever get. At its most base level mind over matter has nothing to do with positive thinking nor does it have to do with ‘doing what you are destined to do’ and has everything to do with simply making sure you are mentally prepared for whatever you are going to do or face.

I have written probably a hundred posts about mind over matter without ever directly addressing mind over matter.

Pretty much everything I write about centers on attitude and understanding how to get your mind right so you can get ahead and go do the rights things <as in the things you want to do>.

Mind over matter … well … matters because what you can actually do is often exponentially larger than what your mind thinks you can do. In other words … you need to convince your mind to see your potential. By the way, this does not mean you can do the impossible … it simply means that your head very often underestimates, practically speaking, how much you can matter in actual ‘doing shit’. In other words … you often can do more than your head may see you can do.

Now. That said.

This brings up my only real issue with mind over matter. The positive psychology crap people seem to want to prescribe & apply to mind over matter. The positive psychology implies if you believe something it will happen. Or if you think positive things that good things will happen.

That’s bullshit.

The mind just gets you in the game. You gotta work hard to win the game.

This means that mind over matter is more often than not about happiness or positivity … it is more about recognizing real obstacles & challenges and mentally preparing yourself to deal with it all. Uhm. Recognizing … not actually accept all of it.

Just accept that “it” is there and will be a burden you will carry as you pursue your objective or step out on whatever path you elect to walk toward your vision. And, yes, it is a burden and, yes, you shouldn’t seek to lighten it but rather accept it. In other words … you will quickly discover you need to accept a sense of being uncomfortable. That is the key to the mind part of the mind over matter.

Mind over matter is about getting your head in the right place for the journey. It is not about believing you can do something impossible. In the end this means you recognize the journey is the challenge and the destination is the reward.

Anyway.

Sometimes we think of our bodies and minds as two distinct entities. And in some ways they are. But in order to maximize your potential and fulfill your purpose <which is more often than not inspired by the mind> you need to enable a more intertwined you – align the body & the mind. Researchers have certainly found evidence that the brain has a distinct power to manipulate the body’s physiology. This means if you get everything aligned in the ‘mind over matter’ that the mind/body connection can work in your favor … or against you … depending on your attitude and your ability to manage your mind.

Suffice it to say that believing in yourself is all about self-esteem and affects self-actualization <Maslow stuff>.

And mind over matter is believing you are prepared to face whatever believing in yourself throws at you.

Simplistically … you either believe you can do something or you don’t.

I believe it was Plato who wrote that the body can only move when pushed by others or when it is propelled forward by a soul or principle of life within it. This suggests an intertwining between mind, brain, body and soul. That, to me, is the formula of mind over matter in which it is the mind <attitudes> that drives the body <behavior> through the brain <intellect> … and the soul, the passion behind your purpose, is the engine.

It our minds that tie our behavior to the desires, aspirations, aims, ambitions and goals we may have.

I will note that preeminent philosophers have danced on this head of a pin over mind versus matter for centuries.

I, being an everyday schumck, would simply suggest that all that matters is you get your mind in a good place, get your head on straight and work hard. You may not get exactly what you want and get where you want but what will matter is you made the attempt and did your best.

And, frankly, pragmatically & honestly, some of us find out that sometimes your best isn’t good enough. Sometimes the world or the path Life places in front of you is more than what you have.

But … well … you know what? That’s okay. Life gives you hundreds of paths to walk.

Mind over matter opens you up to not only the first path you choose but offers you the resilience to walk another path should you stumble upon the one you first chose. And then another after that if needed.

The “Manifesto of Futurism,” written by Filippo Tommaso Marinetti was published on the front page of the French newspaper Le Figaro on February 20, 1909. It proclaimed the desire of the author, and his fellow Futurists, to abandon the past and embrace the future.The point here on the whole concept of a “Futurist” is that their very existence is disdainful of the present.

Anyway.

Should we have an eye to the future? Absolutely.To not do so is to remain stagnant with regard to thinking.

Should we ignore the present? Absolutely not.

If there was ever a time that a Futurist discussed the present … now would be the time.

——–

I still believe the same now as I did then.

Future thinking is purchased in the present. In other words … something existing within the present – most likely some type of behavior … is the future opportunity.

Saying that permits me to say that I believe Futurists … or the label/title … is kind of silly. Suffice it to say looking at trends and envisioning ‘what could be’ doesn’t need a title.

And you certainly cannot earn a living doing it if you get paid for successful futuristic prognostication.

Why?

Because the probability of being right is very very low.

Pretty much every so called futurist <excepting maybe Toffler & Drucker … who never called themselves Futurists> has had an incredibly poor success rate in outlining future trends & behavior <and sometimes even attitudes>.

Moving beyond simply slamming futurists … in my mind … I believe futurists shouldn’t predict … they should inspire thinking <which could beget the future>. This kind of career activity is sort of like NASA.

Unintended innovations and learning.

<insert … ‘yikes’ … and how do you get funding for that these days?>

Speculating on future is all about inspiring thinking … thinking about possibilities and what ifs. And ‘what could be’s.’

This also means not get attached to any one idea or ‘trend’ too much but rather simply embrace the only thing you know for sure … things will change … and embrace change. And if ‘change is a’comin’ you always need to be thinking.

Oh. And not as predicting measured by success or failure.

Well.

Maybe the success objective is simply being in the realm of ‘not being surprised’ <or ‘well, that doesn’t surprise me’>.

Whew.

How’s that for an objective?

I imagine more companies really could use this type of futurist. The difficulty most likely resides in the fact a great thinking ‘futurist’ will typically not bear real tangible results in the present. Their present successes almost always reside in ‘working on ideas which will be used in the future.’

But.

Here is probably where I look at things more differently than any futurist in the world <which means I will never be a card carrying futurist because they will never give me a card> … the future is actually found in the now. Uhm. I mean that future ideas are actually found in the now.

Oh.

And ‘the now’ is not just in thinking … but in doing.

Thinking about what is happening now <attitudes>.

Thinking about what is being done today <behavior>.

Say what?

How can it be futuristic if it is just a derivative of something in the present?

<and feel free and insert a shitload of exclamation points in here if you would like>

Well.

To me real futuristic trending type thinking has to have a slightly pragmatic foundation residing somewhere in the minds of the rising generation. The real … the truly meaningful … behavior shifts occur not within a generation but within transition of generations. Therefore any pie in the sky type thinking has to be made up of some pie that <simplistically> the kids of the present have an interest in eating of. For any future type ideation will live or die not with existing attitude generations but more so in evolving attitude generations.

Now.

To be clear.

People’s attitudes do, and can, evolve as they age and experience things <and they are exposed to new and different attitudes and behavior>. But that isn’t futuristic thinking … that is simply critical mass thinking.

It’s a different ability. That is someone who can look at existing trends and attitudes … mostly looking at those that reside in fractions or in the minority of minds … and figuring out which ones will actually gain enough traction to attain the critical mass to ‘evolve’ the majority of attitudes.

I say that but also suggest that this is often a Sisyphean task.

Attitudes are imprints. They are almost like tattoos. Once established they are almost impossible to remove.

Think about what I would consider the ‘biggies’ of this generation … climate change and marriage <for everyone> … I could also add in equal opportunity.

Please do not get stuck on the examples … just focus on the fact that while I tend to believe the past minority point of views have shifted to a majority more mainstream view acceptance … there still remains a solid steadfast unrelenting minority attitude system in place.

Evolution of attitudes is like glaciers. And they also tend to follow generations … and not single generations.

Early adopter generation transitioning to a vocal minority generation to a majority acceptance generation and ultimately a 4th <and last> generation who not only has the attitudes but behavior is established.

Ok.

Back to what I consider a contrarian point of view on Futurists. I will begin with a quote … and a thought on character.

——-

“People do not seem to realize that their opinion of the world is also a confession of their character.“

Ralph Waldo Emerson

——–

Most ‘futurists’ are pompous holier-than-thou vocal nimwhits.
Okay.

That was harsh.

I will take back the nimwhit part.

Most are pretty sharp. But claiming to be a futurist isn’t about claiming to be some intellectual … or some highly intelligent individual … it is more a reflection of character.

Their character is reflected in a view on how you see the world and how you think about the world … and frankly … how you see people. More futurists should be paying more attention to their character than their predictions. I don’t have research on this and because I am not a futurist I am not qualified to predict future behavior … but … I would suggest that if futurists would do a self character attitude tune-up their actual professional behavior would most likely improve <their predictions would improve>.

<note: I am fairly sure I just got kicked off the futurist campus with that thought … especially the nitwit part>

Second <and lastly>.

Futurists have to look forward but seek truth in the young. Their predictions will never come true if there isn’t a pragmatic realistic foundation to be found within the youth. With no traction … the idea … shit … any future type idea … will die.

As I type this it sounds so obvious.

But it seems like futurists and trend identifiers seem to focus on today’s people and gaze at the horizon.

Well.

Paradoxically … future ideas are actually best found in looking backwards … at those who are coming up behind … the young.

Ah.

Shit.

What do I know.

I am not a futurist.

I like to live in the present & make sure I have a future to be doing something in. Uhm. Isn’t that a Futurist?